I work during the day and so didn’t get to follow the J6 Committee Hearing as closely as I should, and when I did get home there was the scurrilous SCOTUS decision to read about, and then I perused my fellow PolitiZoomers to catch up on other happenings of the day, and then, living alone as I do there was supper and dishes to see to, all followed by a quick smoke then back to Twitter where I learned they talked Italygate today…

Oh, lord, I know there is tape (or DVR) but it’s getting too late to wade into that tonight looking for nuggets..then MSNBC’s Katie Phang came to my rescue!

(Rep. Scott Perry (R) PA. requester of pardon)
(Jeffery Rosen Acting A.G.)
(Richard Donoghue Acting Deputy A.G.)

That’s right, Jeff make your flunky watch the crazy vid.

Well, if Rudy is offended…

Oh. Good.

(Kash Patel Devin Nunes flunky midnight rider, elevated to SecDef flunky, Trump Toady)

Jeebus… duh

Thanks for the recap Katie, always good to see our tax dollars at work!

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.


  1. Dino, no criticism of the article as such but maybe a little more judicious presentation of the Twitter feeds would work better.

    There’s not really a problem with the first two tweets from Katie Phang (though the second one does actually repeat the initial tweet) but the 3rd, 4th and 5th didn’t all need to be there (since the 3rd repeated the “new” part of the 2nd, the 4th repeated the “new” part of the 3rd and the 5th repeated the “new” part of the 4th).

    I don’t know how much time you had to work on the article and you’d just posted the tweets you’d copied in a “raw” form but it just lessens the article’s impact (just a bit) when the tweets largely repeat the same info. (It might work if you read part of the article at one time, then go away and come back a few hours later–sort of the way you might want to reread a paragraph you’ve already read of a book or lengthy news article after setting it down a few hours or days. But with such a relatively short piece, it just seems like unnecessary filler.)

    • You’re right, Joseph, not my best effort, Tweets are impossible to edit, and I wanted Katie to get credit for her thread. Still, all the essential crazy is still in there, so I will leave it up for others to shake their heads at…

      • Again, I wasn’t really complaining so much about the tweets but, perhaps you could’ve omitted a couple. Maybe just use Phang’s 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th tweets since the 2nd’s “new” part is retweeted at the top of the 3rd and the 4th’s “new” part is retweeted at the top of the 5th (the 6th tweet in the article–based on the time stamp–seems like a tweet was actually skipped).
        It’s just been a bit of a pet peeve of mine since information websites started embedding Twitter “footage” in articles. Either they just take a whole Twitter feed (much as you’ve done here) or they post the tweet and then take the “main part” of the tweet and post it below as a full quotation (as an example, the last tweet would show and immediately below it would be “Rosen: There is no factual basis for the fraud assertions being made.”)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here